To win an election is an art form ; the one that can produce the best show will win . It has to do with he form , not the content , that matter.

11:15 am January 20, 2010

JB wrote:

Nothing against Brown, but I don't see how his election is going to bring "change." If it ends hopes for healthcare reform, where is the change? If it ends hopes for banking/finance reform, where is the change? If it intensifies Republican obstructionism in Congress, where is the change? Since losing the White House and control of Congress, the GOP has been the party of the status quo, of resistance to change -- war debts and financial meltdown be d*mned. So, how does adding another Republican increase chances for change? Fiscal responsibility went out the window soon after GW Bush's election, with Republican blessings, so cries about it now from the GOP just smack of obstreperousness and sour grapes. So -- where is the change?

11:34 am January 20, 2010

BW wrote:

Why is it always the Republicans the obstructionists. Maybe because the Democrats are not up for some constructive critisizm. If you remember during George Bush's last term the Dems were in charge of congress. Financial meltdown was a result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Hummm, remember Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd.

11:35 am January 20, 2010

Cato wrote:

The job of US Senator was Coakley's to lose and she proved herself up to the task. Going on vacation in December shows her priorities: me, me and me. It will be interesting to hear from her campaign advisers on how difficult a candidate she was to handle. It must be tough to advise an arrogant bureaucrat who was more concerned with picking out her "coronation" wardrobe than doing the hard work of hands-on campaigning, traveling the state to meet voters. Coakley always seemed aloof from the electorate, but that may have been the effect of the Botox injections on her facial features. If you run a Dukakis-style campaign, you cannot be surprised if you lose.

From now on, the Democrats should look for candidates who don't already have a day political job in the government to fall back on.

11:40 am January 20, 2010

BW wrote:

I would like to know about all the change Barrak Obama promised during his campaign. Haven't seen much of that. Push it down your throat politics. who cares about the people you're supposed to represent. Backroom deals, lousianna purchase,

12:04 pm January 20, 2010

R U Kidding Me? wrote:

the middle class of massachusetts is FINALLy free of servitude to the all-powerful kennedy dynasty. "free at last! free at last! thank God almighty, we are free at last!"

1:27 pm January 20, 2010

JD wrote:

It's interesting to see JB complain about obstructionism and then accuse the GOP of hypocrisy in the same post. He has a very selective memory of those damnable "last eight years".

5:21 pm January 20, 2010

KT wrote:

Republicans are so giddy right now but they don't realize they are not popular either. Its not exactly like Americans are rallying around republicans because they have all the right answers all of a sudden. They are part of the problem too. People have short memories. 1 year ago it was the complete opposite. The pendulum continues to swing because nobody can get it to stop at the mid point. Republicans should not feel energized just because they've effectively stopped democratic agendas. Try being part of the solution and not just an advocate of opposing ideas for the sake of stalling any progress. There is a table in the middle of the room, too bad nobody wants to sit there. Its easier for politicians and all these commenters, analysts, etc. to lob shots across the room. Democrats AND Republicans need to get a clue!! Democrats AND Republicans are out of touch!! Its funny how those at both ends of the spectrum act like they are in touch with Americans and the other side is not. Most Americans are independents.

7:09 pm January 20, 2010

David wrote:

Ha Ha Ha ! Take that Obama! Overreaching Libs, when will you ever learn!.

5:31 am January 21, 2010

Bhagi wrote:

No matter how bad a candidate Coakly was or how good a candidate Brown was, without the total disaster that the Obama administration is, Brown would not have won. What is so awesome is that not only Obamacare is dead, but the dems are on record as voting for it.

7:00 am January 21, 2010

Terry Saulsbury wrote:

Coakley reminded me of an ex-wife....and I don't even have one.

1:35 pm January 21, 2010

R U Kidding Me? wrote:

martha has fallen on the sword for barack obama. the vote for scott brown was entirely a vote against the obama administration. poor martha was just the massachusetts surrogate, but the overwhelming sentiment among voters' was their desire to very loudly say: no you can't, buddy.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.